Crystalline Canopy Theory review by Johnson C. Philip

Herewith a review of the paper “Crystalline Canopy Theory” by Carl E. Baugh

Minor Problems with the Crystalline Canopy Theory

  • The author says (page 1): “Physical laboratory experiments have now demonstrated that sound, in the presence of water, can materialize full spectral light.” However, there is no biblically valid reason to assume that God created light using ‘Sonoluminescence: Sound into Light’. Sound is produced by creatures, but that does not automatically imply that the creator used ‘mechanical’ sound when he commanded light to be.
  • The author quotes (page 2) Josephus “He also placed a crystalline firmament around it”. I very much doubt whether the word ‘crystalline’ there can be taken as the equivalent of the modern word ‘crystalline’.
  • “Upon cessation of the fluttering activities of the Spirit of God, the water molecules would naturally return to their designed random motions” (page 8). The ‘fluttering’ activity is a theory difficult to sustain biblically.

Major Problems

  • His scientific citations (page 2 and 3) related to ‘firmament as the universal expanse’ are themselves are in theoretical stage. One cannot use one or more unestablished theories to establish another theory of one’s own.
  • The concept of an electron-positron lattice that permeates the entire Universe (page 5) is a theoretical concept that has not received any empirical verification so far.
  • The discovery of an ‘optical axis’ for the Universe (page 5 onwards) is at such a primitive stage that extrapolations made on this basis of this ‘discovery’ cannot be sustained – especially when it is used to support a crystal structure for the Universe.
  • The concept of a thermonuclear reaction as the mechanics for the flood (page 27) is far fetched and there is neither theological nor empirical justification for it.

Summary:

I strongly feel that the seemingly dogmatic and major contentions of the author rest upon totally shaky ground based upon research that is in very early stages and that may or may not be established in future:

  • “So space itself is essentially occupied by a crystalline lattice of subatomic particles, and transports light as a crystal with optical activity, thereby meeting the “expanse” definition of raqiya. This lattice supports the ‘tendrils of the cosmic web’ and provides orientation for the physical components of the universe.” (Page 6) This deduction is based upon a number of unestablished claims and cannot be taken seriously at present.
  • “Reference has been made to the Biblical text and Hebrew literature as requiring a crystalline canopy” (Page 30, Conclusion). The Biblical text and Hebrew references definitely do not ‘require’ a crystalline canopy.
  • “The mechanism that triggered the Flood was the voice of God in judgmental disruption of Earth’s internal structure.” (Page 30). This requires God to have produced ‘mechanical’ sound the way humans do. There is no biblical basis for such a claim.

The author has worked hard to develop a theory, and every theory needs to be given a chance to develop. Let the author keep developing this theory. However, at present the theory stands upon numerous shaky assumptions and there in no scope for the dogmatic assertions made by the author.

RETURN TO JOHNSON C. PHILIP’S PANELIST PAGE

Leave a Reply